is that it costs real money to block ports. ISPs have big routers and the cpu cycles of those routers are expensive. Blocking ports takes additonal cpu cycles, so ISPs need to have a strong business reason to start blocking.
I doubt there's a router built in the last 3-5 years that can't block traffic at the port level without so much as a blip on it's cpu cycles. Fancier blocking (multiple conditional rulesets etc) _might_ hurt a particularly poorly designed router, but simply dropping a packet based on src/dst port is a task that has long ago been spun in to ASICs and net processors as a basic no-impact capability.
That being said, this would on;y stop traffic that actually crosses the router - every box on each of the ISP's subnets would still be open to one another...
D
This security patch HAS been on widowsupdate. Matter of fact, the box I'm currently using was patched for this exploit on 8/5 via windowsupdate...
Re:seriously screwed up action
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But the word "peaceably" is not attached to the right to free speech or press. It is only attached to the right for the people to peaceably assmble (ie, it's ok to stand outside Congress and protest something, but not ok to start a riot over it).
Well, oddly enough, he WAS arrested for being involved in a violent protest. On top of that:
Austin admitted posting links about bombs to enable people to build and use them during demonstrations against interstate and foreign trade.
He specifically admitted that his purpose for posting the links was a VIOLENT one. Inciting others to riot is an offense any way you look at it...
All that being said, the whole debate about legality, free speech, civil rights, etc. is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty, so none of those questions could ever be addressed in a court of law. The punishment is based on what he plead guilty to, not the legitimacy of the charges. What did you expect the judge to do, force him in to a trial?
I can't believe I'm correcting a technical reply to a joke on/. - my day must be really slow! This set of IPs will get you fewer funny looks at your next job interview -
10-15 years ago, you could buy these at car wqashes and auto parts stores, but I haven't seen one in quite a while... Hmm, a quick google turns up a ton of options, so I guess they are still out there!
Ack! The way to reslove the problem is not to sue the spammers (well, OK, them too) but to go after teh companies that are using the spam as advertising... I don't care (much) about one jackhole sending me 300 spams for 50 different products, by the time I get around to suing him he'll be broke already. You want to sue the companies selling the crap in spam, and often they are in the US of A, not.ru or.cz.
What makes 2.4Ghz any more 'public' than the freq your mobile phone runs on? Or should that not be 'owned' by a private entity either? It would be better if the company that set up your local mobile phone service were shut down because your neighbor decided to set up a private system in the same fequency range at double the power?
Sheesh, I'm sorry that there is no wireless networking equipment available for you in a free spectrum, but to say that NONE of it should be regulated is just plain silly...
You decry a supposedly america-centric post, then talk about how silly it is to levy a fee to use "Family-Band" and CB (citizen's band)... Those bands only exist as such in places where the appropriate regulatory bodies have defined them as such - specifically, America! It's all about the FCC baby, and the FCC has no jurisdiction in St. Lucia.
For all you know, the St. Lucia harbour patrol may use the same frequencies that the US Gov't considers appropriate for family use...
This is the kind of attitute that I just can't understand, and frankly have a strong distaste for. Taxing should NEVER be a form of punishment for anything. In the case of a fuel tax, the proceeds are generally used for roadway upkeep and building new roads, and since fuel is predominantly used by road going vehicles it's a convenient link in the chain to add a tax.
The fact that it does punish those whose vehicles use more fuel should actually bother you, as more fuel != more roadway use/damage, hence this is not an equitable tax.
I'd love to be taxed on the miles I drive/ride, then at least I'd be paying an equitable share of upkeep for public roads. I don't know how workable Oregon's solution is though (I'd think a DMV check of the odometer once a year would be much more cost effective and all it requires is a supply of mark one eyeballs).
The surplus and battery banks necessary are insignificant
First of all, you've referenced an unsupported/. post as your source, so I really shouldn't even bother with this but... The original post suggests that of the 1.5 million windmills needed, only 150,000 of those need to run at peak power to provide the necessary power. As near as I can figure, that's almost a 1000% surplus! So, now your $0.03 looks closer to $0.30 - far above the $0.12 you claim for nuke power... And on top of that you're not generating any H2!
Do you serisously think that maintenance on 1.5 million of ANYTHING is going to be cheap? How many of those 1.5 million windmills do you think will be down at any given time?
On top of all that, the reality is that the wind farms in California have been killing birds and costing at least 2x as much as the rest of our power from the minute they went in. Drive through one at any time and look at how many of the 'mills are feathered (intentionally shut down) or in peices for repair - it's rather surprising considering how little power we get from those eyesores...
Something that has a feasible battery life, not huge, and has integrated wireless? The Zaurus was almost there...except it lacked just about all three!@!
Well, if by 'integrated wireless' you're referring to WiFi, the Palm Tungsten|C fits the bill quite well. You can easily get 8-10 hours of WiFi use on a single charge - days or weeks of use with WiFi turned off.
If however you were looking for bluetooth, then the TG50 or the Tungsten|T both fit - and with Palm's recent price cut on the T|T it basically boils down to wether or not you like the keyboard on the TG.
Re:Itsn't it a moot point?
on
TiVo Basic
·
· Score: 1
But what about the resolution with a DirecTiVo rip? I know Dish Network's Dishplayer stores the raw broadcast mpeg2
Same same with d-tivo... Why would anyone even bother putting the hardware and software to 'recompress' the video in to a box that already recieves and decodes a digital signal anyway?
All of the 802.11g access points I've seen couldn't operate in 802.11g mode so long as older cards were in the area.
Yeah, and unfortunately this AP doesn't change that. That's the way the standard was written, and nowhere does Linksys claim to be able to perform such magic...
This doesn't only concern end users. This concerns any organisation that obtains an address range for a fee and use NAT to connect their network, including many ISPs.
This might be the end of NAT. Good riddance and welcome IPv6!
Did you miss the part that said WITHOUT CONSENT ??? Sheesh, if your ISP allows you to NAT, then you can NAT. If they say NO NAT'ing, find a new one... This law changes nothing except the penalties for violating your ISPs TOS (now they can sic the cops on you after disco'ing your butt).
While 1(b) is probably the most obnoxious clause, 1(c) is not far behind... it makes it a "felony" to eg. hook two televisions on single cable connection and even make it a felony offense to put NAT boxen !! At our dorm, for World cup we put a computer with TV tuner card connected to cable connection and then used it to stream the transmission for people to watch in their rooms... HELL now we'll be criminals (and that too 'felony'!!) for that...
I'm not really sure how you find 1(b) offensive, unless you think that you should have a right to privacy 'on the net (hint - you don't). As for 1(c), if your cable provider allws you to hook up multiple televisions, then you're not breaking the law. If your ISP allows NAT boxes, you're not breaking the law.
Now, rebroadcasting your cable feed to people who (presumably) haven't paid for cable isn't exactly the kind of behavior that's going to win you a boy scout patch - that's obviously an illegal act, and I dont know what would make you think otherwise... You think that you oughta be able to take your the cable feed from your neighbor? How about all of your neighbors share 1 cable feed? Wait, I know - let the entire city split the tab for 1 cable bill, then you could even afford all those fancy movie channels! Sheesh...
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
Well, since VPN'd packets are encrypted before hitting the 'telecommunications service provider' network, decrypting it wouldn't be illegal under this law (as long as it's intended for you that is - the intercept clause would ensure that).
There's nothing here saying that anything has to be transmitted in the clear, and all your service provider is responsible for is shuttling packets - encrypted or no. Don't mess with that process, and you won't be breaking the law.
"Those phones don't have a lot of CPU power, so the communication between the two ends is not encrypted,"
Avaya is currently the market leader in VoIP shipments, and even their oldest, first generation IP hardphones are capable of media encryption. The above is a pretty overblown generalisation...
Re:Wouldn't you want your VoIP encrypted anyway?
on
Snooping on VOIP
·
· Score: 1
Oh heavens no... Avaya offers a 104 bit version of blowfish encryption on their VoIP solutions today, and it adds roughly 3ms of latency to each end of the conversation.
Now, if you planned on doing new IKE s every 10-15 packets as with SSL, then you'd run in to more problems, however what AV does today with VoIP encryption is prefectly workable and causes no noticeable affects on the call.
Low phone prices are tied to long contracts, if prices go up on the phones then customers will start demanding to not be tied to a long contract. If customers aren't tied to a contract _and_ are allowed to take their numbers with them, carriers will be moving people around like a game of 3 card monty... They don't want that, so they'll keep 'bundling' cheap phones with contracts.
Well, never one to keep my opinions to myself, I hereby bravely head in to the breach.
Until Enterprise came along, I hated Star Trek. I didn't find ANY of it entertaining, from TOS, DS9, and whatever else was out there. I gave every new series a shot because it was considered the 'geek-correct' thing to do. For years I hid my shame, and hid my disdain for ST.... No longer!
Yes, you read that right - I'm a geek, I hate Star Trek, and love enterprise... Mod away!
Foreign military? Hmmm, interesting that you put it that way. It seems that unless your own country completely controls the system, you ARE giving away that power to a foreign military. Or have you forgotten that the EU isn't a country?
Slashdot Mirror
Then you wouldn't have failed your polygraph.....
This security patch HAS been on widowsupdate. Matter of fact, the box I'm currently using was patched for this exploit on 8/5 via windowsupdate...
Well, oddly enough, he WAS arrested for being involved in a violent protest. On top of that:
He specifically admitted that his purpose for posting the links was a VIOLENT one. Inciting others to riot is an offense any way you look at it...
All that being said, the whole debate about legality, free speech, civil rights, etc. is a moot point - the 'gentleman' in question VOLUNTARILY gave up his right to a trial and plead guilty, so none of those questions could ever be addressed in a court of law. The punishment is based on what he plead guilty to, not the legitimacy of the charges. What did you expect the judge to do, force him in to a trial?
I can't believe I'm correcting a technical reply to a joke on
Class-A 10.0.0.0/8
Class-B 172.16.0.0/16
Class-C 192.168.0.0/24
8 bits per octet (hence the 'oct'), so it's 8,16,24...
D
10-15 years ago, you could buy these at car wqashes and auto parts stores, but I haven't seen one in quite a while... Hmm, a quick google turns up a ton of options, so I guess they are still out there!
Ack! The way to reslove the problem is not to sue the spammers (well, OK, them too) but to go after teh companies that are using the spam as advertising... I don't care (much) about one jackhole sending me 300 spams for 50 different products, by the time I get around to suing him he'll be broke already. You want to sue the companies selling the crap in spam, and often they are in the US of A, not .ru or .cz .
What makes 2.4Ghz any more 'public' than the freq your mobile phone runs on? Or should that not be 'owned' by a private entity either? It would be better if the company that set up your local mobile phone service were shut down because your neighbor decided to set up a private system in the same fequency range at double the power?
Sheesh, I'm sorry that there is no wireless networking equipment available for you in a free spectrum, but to say that NONE of it should be regulated is just plain silly...
You decry a supposedly america-centric post, then talk about how silly it is to levy a fee to use "Family-Band" and CB (citizen's band)... Those bands only exist as such in places where the appropriate regulatory bodies have defined them as such - specifically, America! It's all about the FCC baby, and the FCC has no jurisdiction in St. Lucia.
For all you know, the St. Lucia harbour patrol may use the same frequencies that the US Gov't considers appropriate for family use...
This is the kind of attitute that I just can't understand, and frankly have a strong distaste for. Taxing should NEVER be a form of punishment for anything. In the case of a fuel tax, the proceeds are generally used for roadway upkeep and building new roads, and since fuel is predominantly used by road going vehicles it's a convenient link in the chain to add a tax.
The fact that it does punish those whose vehicles use more fuel should actually bother you, as more fuel != more roadway use/damage, hence this is not an equitable tax.
I'd love to be taxed on the miles I drive/ride, then at least I'd be paying an equitable share of upkeep for public roads. I don't know how workable Oregon's solution is though (I'd think a DMV check of the odometer once a year would be much more cost effective and all it requires is a supply of mark one eyeballs).
First of all, you've referenced an unsupported
Do you serisously think that maintenance on 1.5 million of ANYTHING is going to be cheap? How many of those 1.5 million windmills do you think will be down at any given time?
On top of all that, the reality is that the wind farms in California have been killing birds and costing at least 2x as much as the rest of our power from the minute they went in. Drive through one at any time and look at how many of the 'mills are feathered (intentionally shut down) or in peices for repair - it's rather surprising considering how little power we get from those eyesores...
Well, if by 'integrated wireless' you're referring to WiFi, the Palm Tungsten|C fits the bill quite well. You can easily get 8-10 hours of WiFi use on a single charge - days or weeks of use with WiFi turned off.
If however you were looking for bluetooth, then the TG50 or the Tungsten|T both fit - and with Palm's recent price cut on the T|T it basically boils down to wether or not you like the keyboard on the TG.
Same same with d-tivo... Why would anyone even bother putting the hardware and software to 'recompress' the video in to a box that already recieves and decodes a digital signal anyway?
Yeah, and unfortunately this AP doesn't change that. That's the way the standard was written, and nowhere does Linksys claim to be able to perform such magic...
That's a rather ignorant statement, since 3 of the 5 major cell carriers here in the US use GSM...
Did you miss the part that said WITHOUT CONSENT ??? Sheesh, if your ISP allows you to NAT, then you can NAT. If they say NO NAT'ing, find a new one... This law changes nothing except the penalties for violating your ISPs TOS (now they can sic the cops on you after disco'ing your butt).
I'm not really sure how you find 1(b) offensive, unless you think that you should have a right to privacy 'on the net (hint - you don't). As for 1(c), if your cable provider allws you to hook up multiple televisions, then you're not breaking the law. If your ISP allows NAT boxes, you're not breaking the law.
Now, rebroadcasting your cable feed to people who (presumably) haven't paid for cable isn't exactly the kind of behavior that's going to win you a boy scout patch - that's obviously an illegal act, and I dont know what would make you think otherwise... You think that you oughta be able to take your the cable feed from your neighbor? How about all of your neighbors share 1 cable feed? Wait, I know - let the entire city split the tab for 1 cable bill, then you could even afford all those fancy movie channels! Sheesh...
Well, since VPN'd packets are encrypted before hitting the 'telecommunications service provider' network, decrypting it wouldn't be illegal under this law (as long as it's intended for you that is - the intercept clause would ensure that).
There's nothing here saying that anything has to be transmitted in the clear, and all your service provider is responsible for is shuttling packets - encrypted or no. Don't mess with that process, and you won't be breaking the law.
I tried that once. My cat landed on it's feet, then promptly rolled over onto his back ;-)
Avaya is currently the market leader in VoIP shipments, and even their oldest, first generation IP hardphones are capable of media encryption. The above is a pretty overblown generalisation...
Oh heavens no... Avaya offers a 104 bit version of blowfish encryption on their VoIP solutions today, and it adds roughly 3ms of latency to each end of the conversation.
Now, if you planned on doing new IKE s every 10-15 packets as with SSL, then you'd run in to more problems, however what AV does today with VoIP encryption is prefectly workable and causes no noticeable affects on the call.
D
Low phone prices are tied to long contracts, if prices go up on the phones then customers will start demanding to not be tied to a long contract. If customers aren't tied to a contract _and_ are allowed to take their numbers with them, carriers will be moving people around like a game of 3 card monty... They don't want that, so they'll keep 'bundling' cheap phones with contracts.
Well, never one to keep my opinions to myself, I hereby bravely head in to the breach.
Until Enterprise came along, I hated Star Trek. I didn't find ANY of it entertaining, from TOS, DS9, and whatever else was out there. I gave every new series a shot because it was considered the 'geek-correct' thing to do. For years I hid my shame, and hid my disdain for ST.... No longer!
Yes, you read that right - I'm a geek, I hate Star Trek, and love enterprise... Mod away!
Foreign military? Hmmm, interesting that you put it that way. It seems that unless your own country completely controls the system, you ARE giving away that power to a foreign military. Or have you forgotten that the EU isn't a country?
Boy, it's a good thing Galileo, Magellan, and Columbus all had their trusty GPS systems available back then, isn't it?